Chapter 20 - § 20.5 • COURT INTERPRETATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT
| Jurisdiction | Colorado |
It is clear that the affidavit creates an obligation for its signers (including the petitioner, any signatory "household member," and joint sponsors) to repay the federal or state government if the sponsored immigrant uses any "means-tested public benefits." However, in addition to this obligation, the affidavit sponsors have been found liable to support the affidavit beneficiary or beneficiaries at 125 percent of the federal poverty line. Congress "clearly intended to permit the sponsored immigrant to sue to enforce the support obligation."29 The enforcement statute also includes remedies such as "payment of legal fees and other costs of collection."30 Federal courts have consistently held that Form I-864 constitutes a legally binding and enforceable contract between a sponsor and a sponsored immigrant.31
Case law interpreting the affidavit's contractual disputes has been established in the context of divorce. The affidavit of support form specifically states that divorce does not terminate obligations under Form I-864.32 The form's obligations have been found enforceable despite an earlier premarital agreement.33 The affiant's obligations "exist[] apart from whatever rights [the plaintiff] might or might not have under [state] divorce law."34 The sponsor's obligations are terminated upon the five circumstances previously noted.
In a 2015 case, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found that an exspouse was obligated to maintain his immigrant ex-wife's income at a minimum 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The "[d]efendant knowingly, voluntarily and willingly assumed this obligation when he signed Form I-864."35 The defendant claimed that an ante-nuptial agreement precluded any claim for alimony or support, except child support. The defendant relied upon a similar case in Hawaii where the district court found the ante-nuptial agreement waived legal right to support. The court in Hawaii noted it was not addressing the right of any public agency to enforce Form I-864, however.36 The Maryland district court distinguished the Hawaii case and found that the defendant waived his rights when he signed Form I-864 after the ante-nuptial agreement. The court relied on the "well settled rule" that the parties by their conduct may waive the requirements of a written contract. Similarly, in 2014, the district court in New Jersey also found that a previous ante-nuptial agreement would not defeat support obligations pursuant to Form I-864.37
In October 2016, the U.S...
To continue reading
Request your trial